I am wondering how many different aircraft a pilot would be safe flying if a company had a mixed fleet.
For instance three different light singles and three different light twins and a helicopter.
Would it be reasonable for one pilot to randomly fly all of them based on which one was needed?
Cat
How many different aircraft?
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
How many different aircraft?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat - You sure do come up with doozies. Damn good question. I was typed and current on 5 different airplanes. Navajo, Beech 200, Beech 350, Metro 11 and Metro 111. Mind you, I was involved mostly in the training so I developed little tricks to keep the numbers straight. I had flashcards that I used. It might be interesting to realize that by teaching , you learn and I would average 2 or 3 initial groundschools on each type every year. Not only did I teach the schools,I also developed and improved the content of the cirriculum. Mind you, although the Navajo was the odd one out, the King Air 200 and King Air 350 were quite similar and the Metro 11 and 111 are almost identical.
Is it a good idea?
Hell no.
In the last 4 months, I have been flying the King Air 350 exclusivly and I feel a lot more comfortable in it. Otherwise, I have to depend more on the co-pilot if the weather is cruddy.
The King Air 350 has a great autopilot so that helps.
And most of my time is doing checkrides and training , so that is a bit different.
If you are typed on two or three different airplanes, you had better have good training.
Is it a good idea?
Hell no.
In the last 4 months, I have been flying the King Air 350 exclusivly and I feel a lot more comfortable in it. Otherwise, I have to depend more on the co-pilot if the weather is cruddy.
The King Air 350 has a great autopilot so that helps.
And most of my time is doing checkrides and training , so that is a bit different.
If you are typed on two or three different airplanes, you had better have good training.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
The reason I asked this Oldtimer is many years ago I was chief Pilot for a company that operated a real weird collection of stuff from a Fleet Canuck to a Bonanza in the flight school, so being the CFI I had to fly all of them.
On the charter side we had an Apache, a Beech 18 and two DeHavilland Doves, that we used to haul auto parts at night and of course I had to fly them as well...
...but the real tricky one was the helicopters, we had two Hughes, a 269A and a Hughes 300 that I did aerial application with as well as two traffic patrols per day in Detroit across the river from Windsor...
I do not recall having any problems going from one to the other on a random basis.
But can you imagine the problems that we would have with TC in todays world of cover your ass PPC's and training...f.ck there wouldn't be enough money in any company to pay for the training...
Anyhow, I will see where my latest contribution to this illoustrious group goes as they argue this one out among themselves.
Cat
On the charter side we had an Apache, a Beech 18 and two DeHavilland Doves, that we used to haul auto parts at night and of course I had to fly them as well...
...but the real tricky one was the helicopters, we had two Hughes, a 269A and a Hughes 300 that I did aerial application with as well as two traffic patrols per day in Detroit across the river from Windsor...
I do not recall having any problems going from one to the other on a random basis.
But can you imagine the problems that we would have with TC in todays world of cover your ass PPC's and training...f.ck there wouldn't be enough money in any company to pay for the training...
Anyhow, I will see where my latest contribution to this illoustrious group goes as they argue this one out among themselves.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
desksgo
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2850
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:05 pm
- Location: Toy Poodle Town, Manitoba
- Contact:
Hi Cat, nice topic. Very relevant in my opinion.
I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture just last month, with some of the big boys at NASA presenting where they'd like to see civilian flight training go in the next 5, 10, 20 and even 40-50+ years. In short, an idea was presented for the distant future where they would like to get to the point where potential professional pilots are trained in a similar fashion to that of civil test pilots. Where instead of learning to fly a C172 in the earliest of flight time, one is simply taught to fly. Using adaptive FTDs, the idea is to simulate an aircraft that teaches a student the very fundementals of a "generic" aircraft. These devices would be far less forgiving than a typical tricycle gear trainer and produce a much more well rounded aviator. Now, the catch is the education would demand an aviator be well familiar with aerodynamics, basic flight physics and overall a much higher education than what we currently offer. But, the outcome, is to produce someone who can walk out on to a ramp and conceivably operate any typical aircraft with minimal training. I'll see if I can dig up a link or something. But I found the concept fascinating and placed in in my "WHY NOT?" file.
So anyway, to get back from la-la land. I really don't see why someone with demonstrated skill in aviation couldn't fly multiple aircraft. Especially at the lighter GA level. But I'd take it on a case by case basis, just because of the slow children we often run across.
I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture just last month, with some of the big boys at NASA presenting where they'd like to see civilian flight training go in the next 5, 10, 20 and even 40-50+ years. In short, an idea was presented for the distant future where they would like to get to the point where potential professional pilots are trained in a similar fashion to that of civil test pilots. Where instead of learning to fly a C172 in the earliest of flight time, one is simply taught to fly. Using adaptive FTDs, the idea is to simulate an aircraft that teaches a student the very fundementals of a "generic" aircraft. These devices would be far less forgiving than a typical tricycle gear trainer and produce a much more well rounded aviator. Now, the catch is the education would demand an aviator be well familiar with aerodynamics, basic flight physics and overall a much higher education than what we currently offer. But, the outcome, is to produce someone who can walk out on to a ramp and conceivably operate any typical aircraft with minimal training. I'll see if I can dig up a link or something. But I found the concept fascinating and placed in in my "WHY NOT?" file.
So anyway, to get back from la-la land. I really don't see why someone with demonstrated skill in aviation couldn't fly multiple aircraft. Especially at the lighter GA level. But I'd take it on a case by case basis, just because of the slow children we often run across.
Last edited by desksgo on Mon May 16, 2005 8:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
canadian_bacon
- Rank 1
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:09 pm
- Location: Prairie & Northern
I would say it depends on the type of aircraft operated. Currenly I fly a C206, 210, 185, Navajo, and King Air 200. I feel comfortable in all but the 185, in which, I don't think I will ever be 100% comfortable with it. It isn't for lack of training or time, just respect for something that could kick me in the butt at any moment!!
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" I don't think I will ever be 100% comfortable with it. It isn't for lack of training or time, just respect for something that could kick me in the butt at any moment!! "
As long as you keep that attitude you will be just fine....
becoming comfortable with any aircraft can lead into complacency and may lead to becoming embarrased or worse.
Go and get some time with a good Pitts insrtuctor and the 185 will be simple..
Have fun and take care canadian_bacon...
.
Cat
As long as you keep that attitude you will be just fine....
becoming comfortable with any aircraft can lead into complacency and may lead to becoming embarrased or worse.
Go and get some time with a good Pitts insrtuctor and the 185 will be simple..
Have fun and take care canadian_bacon...
.Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
CAT I can see where, under the right conditions, a pilot can safely fly a variety of singles and some twins but I would like to think I would draw the line on helecopters. Fixed wing and fling wing are just too different.
In many respects, it can be a challenge jumping between singles, twins and sFAR 41/Commuter Category twins like the King Air/Metro 111 because the smaller singles and twin are designed with the low time "owner operator" in mind so procedures are on purpose quite similar whereas the larger turbine airplanes require training so many procedures are quite different.
After all this is said and done, somebody is going to ask some poor slob who has spent a fortune getting the training and ratings to go out and fly those airplanes for wages that are considerably less than what the guy hanging on to the back of a garbage truck for the city earns.
My son had a friend, a chef, who, between gigs, drove a garbage truck for the city of Calgary. The guy hanging on the back, a low mentality labourer, after years of seniority, made almost as much as my right seater, when you factor in the hours worked, and this guy did not even have to have a drivers license.
That is a bigger problem than flying different types.
In many respects, it can be a challenge jumping between singles, twins and sFAR 41/Commuter Category twins like the King Air/Metro 111 because the smaller singles and twin are designed with the low time "owner operator" in mind so procedures are on purpose quite similar whereas the larger turbine airplanes require training so many procedures are quite different.
After all this is said and done, somebody is going to ask some poor slob who has spent a fortune getting the training and ratings to go out and fly those airplanes for wages that are considerably less than what the guy hanging on to the back of a garbage truck for the city earns.
My son had a friend, a chef, who, between gigs, drove a garbage truck for the city of Calgary. The guy hanging on the back, a low mentality labourer, after years of seniority, made almost as much as my right seater, when you factor in the hours worked, and this guy did not even have to have a drivers license.
That is a bigger problem than flying different types.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Oldtimer :
Yeh the human race is sure f.cked up isn't it..
..how do you figure someone can smack a hockey puck around or bounce and throw a basket ball makes millions and someone who flys an airplane worth millions makes peanuts...go figure.
Back to the different types and safely jumping from one to another, it is all a matter of thinking clearly and paying attention to what you are doing...especially jumping out of an airplane into a rotorcraft....
...speaking of differences the one that can really ruin your day is going from a Helicopter to a Gyroplane. You can really fu.k up with a
Gyroplane if you are used to the helicopter and try and level the
Gyroplane in the landing flare like you must do with a full on auto in the helicopter..they are both rotorcraft and both are in auto rotation ..the difference is one has a collective and the other does not and if you forget and use the wrong technique you will smash the machine all to ratshit if you do not think about what you are flying.
Modern large jets are another subject all together and really do require training in SOP's and crew co-ordination , plus the ability to type the instructions for the third crew member the computer to carry out your wishes. . They do have pretty glass panels though...
Cat
Yeh the human race is sure f.cked up isn't it..
..how do you figure someone can smack a hockey puck around or bounce and throw a basket ball makes millions and someone who flys an airplane worth millions makes peanuts...go figure.
Back to the different types and safely jumping from one to another, it is all a matter of thinking clearly and paying attention to what you are doing...especially jumping out of an airplane into a rotorcraft....
...speaking of differences the one that can really ruin your day is going from a Helicopter to a Gyroplane. You can really fu.k up with a
Gyroplane if you are used to the helicopter and try and level the
Gyroplane in the landing flare like you must do with a full on auto in the helicopter..they are both rotorcraft and both are in auto rotation ..the difference is one has a collective and the other does not and if you forget and use the wrong technique you will smash the machine all to ratshit if you do not think about what you are flying.
Modern large jets are another subject all together and really do require training in SOP's and crew co-ordination , plus the ability to type the instructions for the third crew member the computer to carry out your wishes. .
They do have pretty glass panels though...Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I'd say it goes down to how similar the different aircraft systems are.
I could most likely sit in any tricycle-gear, air cooled flat opposed 4 or 6 cylinder piston engine single and fly it safely with little or even maybe no instruction at all.
For example, I've never flown a Piper Warrior or a Cessna 182RG, yet I could probably get in one, overview the POH, familiarize myself with the cabin layout and fly off in relative safety. (The fact its "rather safe" does not mean its a smart thing to do either...)
Soon, I should be able to add light twins to the list, and provided I get some relevant training, tailwheel aircraft...
However, add different advanced avionics suites, fancy fuel transfer pump systems, complex hydraulics or enough electrical buses to power a small town, and the possibility of flying multiple types with an acceptable level of proficiency decreases dramatically.
While this concept is hard to quantify and it's definition can vary from one person to another, the fact remains that there are only 24 hours in a day, and that you can only spend so much of it studying. At some point, you might be able to operate numerous planes on a day to day basis, but hit a serious wall the minute some strange problem requiring thorough systems knowledge pops up...
Goodbye,
Louis
Edit: typo
I could most likely sit in any tricycle-gear, air cooled flat opposed 4 or 6 cylinder piston engine single and fly it safely with little or even maybe no instruction at all.
For example, I've never flown a Piper Warrior or a Cessna 182RG, yet I could probably get in one, overview the POH, familiarize myself with the cabin layout and fly off in relative safety. (The fact its "rather safe" does not mean its a smart thing to do either...)
Soon, I should be able to add light twins to the list, and provided I get some relevant training, tailwheel aircraft...
However, add different advanced avionics suites, fancy fuel transfer pump systems, complex hydraulics or enough electrical buses to power a small town, and the possibility of flying multiple types with an acceptable level of proficiency decreases dramatically.
While this concept is hard to quantify and it's definition can vary from one person to another, the fact remains that there are only 24 hours in a day, and that you can only spend so much of it studying. At some point, you might be able to operate numerous planes on a day to day basis, but hit a serious wall the minute some strange problem requiring thorough systems knowledge pops up...
Goodbye,
Louis
Edit: typo
Last edited by Louis on Tue May 17, 2005 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.testpilots.com/training.htmdesksgo wrote:they would like to get to the point where potential professional pilots are trained in a similar fashion to that of civil test pilots.
Might be a bit expensive through!
But those guys (test pilots) are hard to beat regading the variety of aircraft flown. Although they don't need to stay current on each one.
Scroll down a bit to see "Calspan's" Lear 25
To quote one of their engineer, "It can simulate anything that can fly".
That's the little beast we need
The safe mixing of aircraft types depends a great deal on the relative experience of the pilot. Moving between several light singles if you have a reasonable amount of time in a bunch of light singles can be accomplished safely. If you have a bunch of PT6 powered turbine time then shuffling between several PT6 powered airframes is also relatively easy. The same can be said for jet to jet transitions. But, leave your comfort zone and things can go to He!! in a heart beat. The more complex the airplane the more difficult the transition. Modern turbines and jets are complicated enough that regulators, insurers and pilots alike all think that frequent, regular training on type is a good idea. If you were to attempt to stay current on more than one dis-similar complex airplane you would spend inordinant amounts of time training in order to remain professional in the machine. Most airlines realize this and only assign pilots to one type at a time unless the types are genetically similar (ie B757\767 or EA32 series etc.). If we aspire to maintain airline proficiency then maybe we should take a book from their page and stop trying to be jocks of all types.
A classic example of even exact types being a difficult transition to the point of being dangerous: Early model BE55 and 58's (Barons) have the Mixture, Pitch and Power Levers reverse located from later models. Landing Gear, and Flap lever positions are even reversed. Try looking an accident investigator in the eye in the dark at the end of a 15 hour IFR day, keep a straight face and tell him you were safe because they are the EXACT SAME TYPE\PPC.
A 40 flap go-round in a DHC6-300 requires forward pressure on the control column, nothing generic about that. Every airplane is different and must be treated as such.
I started out with a Chief Pilot in the early 70's who would not let us fly the two different BE58 model years aircraft at the same time. He specifically assigned one model and registration mark per pilot to prevent an event from occurring. 30 years ago I thought he was a little paranoid. Today I count my blessings for his wisdom.
Food for thought.
Tail Winds
Steve
A classic example of even exact types being a difficult transition to the point of being dangerous: Early model BE55 and 58's (Barons) have the Mixture, Pitch and Power Levers reverse located from later models. Landing Gear, and Flap lever positions are even reversed. Try looking an accident investigator in the eye in the dark at the end of a 15 hour IFR day, keep a straight face and tell him you were safe because they are the EXACT SAME TYPE\PPC.
A 40 flap go-round in a DHC6-300 requires forward pressure on the control column, nothing generic about that. Every airplane is different and must be treated as such.
I started out with a Chief Pilot in the early 70's who would not let us fly the two different BE58 model years aircraft at the same time. He specifically assigned one model and registration mark per pilot to prevent an event from occurring. 30 years ago I thought he was a little paranoid. Today I count my blessings for his wisdom.
Food for thought.
Tail Winds
Steve
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
It would be nice to see more thoughts on the multi type aircraft subject and how many different types a pilot could be expected to fly safely.
Remember if we limit ourself to one or two different aircraft we should also maybe look at getting out of an aircraft and trying to figure out how to drive our car and even more scary how could you be expected to also own a motorcycle and operate it because it would really get difficult having to be profficient on an aircraft a car and a motorcycle wouldn't it?
Cat
Remember if we limit ourself to one or two different aircraft we should also maybe look at getting out of an aircraft and trying to figure out how to drive our car and even more scary how could you be expected to also own a motorcycle and operate it because it would really get difficult having to be profficient on an aircraft a car and a motorcycle wouldn't it?
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Big Pistons Forever
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5927
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
I found my instructing background helped me move between aircraft types
because it forced you to have a solid background on flying fundamentals.
I found one page in my logbook from the time I was instructing full time that looked like this
1- C-150 PPL circuits
2- BC12D tailwheel checkout
3- C-150A aeros 4 (barrel rolls)
4- PA34 IFR X-country training flight
5 -C172 CPL preflight test
6 - PA31 night bag run.
I don't recall any issues from those days. Flying light singles/twins is not rocket science as long as you use the check list and make sure you 100% understand the systems. I remember one local pilot who thought I was far to cavalier with this attitude. He proudly told me how he would never fly a different light single without a full checkout, just as he was heading out to fly through the Rockies on a 1500 overcast day with CB's forecasted.
because it forced you to have a solid background on flying fundamentals.
I found one page in my logbook from the time I was instructing full time that looked like this
1- C-150 PPL circuits
2- BC12D tailwheel checkout
3- C-150A aeros 4 (barrel rolls)
4- PA34 IFR X-country training flight
5 -C172 CPL preflight test
6 - PA31 night bag run.
I don't recall any issues from those days. Flying light singles/twins is not rocket science as long as you use the check list and make sure you 100% understand the systems. I remember one local pilot who thought I was far to cavalier with this attitude. He proudly told me how he would never fly a different light single without a full checkout, just as he was heading out to fly through the Rockies on a 1500 overcast day with CB's forecasted.
Problem #1
Someone pranged an Islander out of TUK because he was not familiar with the airplane and got the rudder trims mixed up and trimmed the wrong way. Was that accident caused by incompetance, fear or is it an insiduious problem? Was lack of training a factor. Was the quality of the training a factor. Is it unsafe to allow a pilot to switch back and forth between types. Is it safe as long as everything goes alright. I did not know the pilot or the operator so I cannot judge.
Problem #2
Now the regulators had to bring out the spin doctors to sway public opinion because they allowed grouping the Islander and the Navajo as similar types. Should this be allowed or should we just keep on with the status quo. Can the regulators develop enough regulations to protect us from ourselves. Can we develop enough training programs to prevent this sort of accident. Or are we just adding chlorine to the gene pool, thinning out those who have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Problem #3
Now the insurance companies will take a look at the problem. That means a rate increase.
I do not think it is all that difficult to bounce from one simple single to another, as long as there is either a history of doing that sort of thing - called experience - or proper training takes place. Same goes for simple twins. I remember when I was a youngster, I used to do the post CofA flight tests on customers airplanes so I ended up flying almost anything small with wings with no checkout and I made out OK. But I also remember jumping into a Super Cub on wheels after a whole summer in a Norseman on floats and I felt uncomfortable on the first take-off. Yet after my heart attack and 9 months of inactivity, I jumped into a Metro for training and felt right at home. 2 hours training and aced the checkride. And I am not that great a pilot. Anybody else with any skill and dedication can do the same thing. Is it skill or is it training. Because before I got my medical back, I was embarking on a new career doing ground training.
I have no time or experience in Airbus airplanes but from what I have read, the French do not trust pilots so they have developed computers that almost take the pilot out of the loop as far as "flying" the airplane and that appears to be working because you do not hear of too many Airbus accidents.
In my opinion, I think pilots can switch back and forth. Some of us have good experiences and some have not so good.
In my humble opinion, it can be done but should not be done without lots of quality training because if anything goes wrong, the shit($$$$$) will hit the fan.($x10 $x10 $x10)
CAT - I read your comments about quality CP's and Ops Managers and you are so correct. But when it comes to training, what do we do? If you cannot get out of the hangar quick enough to escape the chief pilot, your the training captain. Some pay a pittance to their trainers but to most CEO's it is just a necessary expense that they would rather do without. With that attitude, we will continue to have preventable accidents and getting airplane types mixed up is only one of many cause factors.[/list]
Someone pranged an Islander out of TUK because he was not familiar with the airplane and got the rudder trims mixed up and trimmed the wrong way. Was that accident caused by incompetance, fear or is it an insiduious problem? Was lack of training a factor. Was the quality of the training a factor. Is it unsafe to allow a pilot to switch back and forth between types. Is it safe as long as everything goes alright. I did not know the pilot or the operator so I cannot judge.
Problem #2
Now the regulators had to bring out the spin doctors to sway public opinion because they allowed grouping the Islander and the Navajo as similar types. Should this be allowed or should we just keep on with the status quo. Can the regulators develop enough regulations to protect us from ourselves. Can we develop enough training programs to prevent this sort of accident. Or are we just adding chlorine to the gene pool, thinning out those who have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Problem #3
Now the insurance companies will take a look at the problem. That means a rate increase.
I do not think it is all that difficult to bounce from one simple single to another, as long as there is either a history of doing that sort of thing - called experience - or proper training takes place. Same goes for simple twins. I remember when I was a youngster, I used to do the post CofA flight tests on customers airplanes so I ended up flying almost anything small with wings with no checkout and I made out OK. But I also remember jumping into a Super Cub on wheels after a whole summer in a Norseman on floats and I felt uncomfortable on the first take-off. Yet after my heart attack and 9 months of inactivity, I jumped into a Metro for training and felt right at home. 2 hours training and aced the checkride. And I am not that great a pilot. Anybody else with any skill and dedication can do the same thing. Is it skill or is it training. Because before I got my medical back, I was embarking on a new career doing ground training.
I have no time or experience in Airbus airplanes but from what I have read, the French do not trust pilots so they have developed computers that almost take the pilot out of the loop as far as "flying" the airplane and that appears to be working because you do not hear of too many Airbus accidents.
In my opinion, I think pilots can switch back and forth. Some of us have good experiences and some have not so good.
In my humble opinion, it can be done but should not be done without lots of quality training because if anything goes wrong, the shit($$$$$) will hit the fan.($x10 $x10 $x10)
CAT - I read your comments about quality CP's and Ops Managers and you are so correct. But when it comes to training, what do we do? If you cannot get out of the hangar quick enough to escape the chief pilot, your the training captain. Some pay a pittance to their trainers but to most CEO's it is just a necessary expense that they would rather do without. With that attitude, we will continue to have preventable accidents and getting airplane types mixed up is only one of many cause factors.[/list]
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
-
170 to xray
- Rank 3
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:48 am
- Location: cyyz
I used to fly a Hawker 600, 700 and 800. The type rating reads H25 and allows you to fly them all legally.
That being said there are some subtle differences between the different models. Something one of our pilots learned while attempting to transfer fuel. Switch position and more importantly the order of valve vs. pump was very important on the 600 but was not on the 800. He found that out at FL410 when #1 quit.
Decend and relight followed by a trip to the managers office. 
I once got a call from our Ops manager's secretary. She thought there was a mistake. I had flown a C172, C310, C402B, C402C and E110 all in the same day. I was PPC'd and current in all, except of course the 172.
I worked at a company where it was the norm to be typed and current in at least 2, sometimes 3 jet types.
That being said there are some subtle differences between the different models. Something one of our pilots learned while attempting to transfer fuel. Switch position and more importantly the order of valve vs. pump was very important on the 600 but was not on the 800. He found that out at FL410 when #1 quit.
Decend and relight followed by a trip to the managers office. I once got a call from our Ops manager's secretary. She thought there was a mistake. I had flown a C172, C310, C402B, C402C and E110 all in the same day. I was PPC'd and current in all, except of course the 172.
I worked at a company where it was the norm to be typed and current in at least 2, sometimes 3 jet types.
-
Siddley Hawker
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3353
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:56 pm
- Location: 50.13N 66.17W
In the early 80's I was current on the F-27, the G1 and the HS25. (1A-R)On a few occasions actually flew all three the same day. It was 3 weeks a year at FSI and USAir just for the recurrent. I never had any problems with it though. The F-27 and G1 had the same engines, V-speeds were pretty close for all three and fuel burn for flight planning purposes was similar. The biggest differences I found were the electrical systems. The Hawker was dead simple, basically L/H powers left, R/H powers right with a bus tie switch to connect everything in case of a DC failure. The G1 had about 7 electrical busses to run everything as I recall, but with load shedding in case of failure, plus the APU as backup. I found the F-27 to be the biggest electrical can of worms. We didn't have an APU but had 4 batteries. With no electrical load shedding you had to watch the electrical load with a generator out.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I think that a couple different types are okay if you've gotten to know each airplane. If your flying a 185, a turbo beaver and a twin otter on floats wheels and skis which i've done its okay as long as you have flown each individual one enough to be profficient. I'm a big believer if you get checked out in a new type you should only fly that type until you have a handle on it then go back to the other types. Once you have a lot of time in all three types by the time you taxi out and are airborne your back in the saddle. However lower time pilots being checked out on multiple types without much time in any of them is a recipe for disaster from my own experiances. Getting back in the Twin after flying around by myself in Beaver just running the checklists gets your head back in the game.
By the way excellent topic Cat
By the way excellent topic Cat
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" By the way excellent topic Cat "
Yup, isn't it amazing that when we discuss flying in a professional manner all the weirdos stay out of it?
Yup, isn't it amazing that when we discuss flying in a professional manner all the weirdos stay out of it?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
wollypilot
- Rank 2
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:18 am
Well I was wondering how this topic related to monkey sex and tea-bagging, but I guess it is o.k. anyway.
Way to go Cat.
Cheers, wp.
PS I fly the Caravan, 404,Pa-31 King Air and DHC-6 on a somewhat erratic schedule. I find sometime I have to override a conditioned reflex because I am not flying the correct plane for the action:(Where is the gear handle in this Twotter?) Nice to have the vareity though.
Now back to the tea-bagging inquiries...
Cheers, wp.
Way to go Cat.
Cheers, wp.
PS I fly the Caravan, 404,Pa-31 King Air and DHC-6 on a somewhat erratic schedule. I find sometime I have to override a conditioned reflex because I am not flying the correct plane for the action:(Where is the gear handle in this Twotter?) Nice to have the vareity though.
Now back to the tea-bagging inquiries...
Cheers, wp.
. and Canuck
Our Licenses are not restricted to any specific number of aircraft types. In fact they are fully inclusive as per your license category; IE "all non-high performance single (multi) engine aircraft AND the following types"....
Nor is the number of valid PPC's restrcted in any way. The only PPC restriction is the ability to pass the ride (grouping confuses this issue greatly) but does not in any way restrict the number of aircraft we can fly. Common sense, personal skill and desire, and company policy are the only guidelines we have here. I stand to be corrected but I believe that 705 Airline Ops actually have a 2 aircraft maximum, but my CARs memory is fading as much as my hair line is.
The number 3 that is mentioned is the generally accepted maximum of (non-grouped) aircraft that a non-Transport Canada Air Carrier Check Pilot may conduct PPC's on. These are Company Check Pilots or Free Lancers. Even the 3 aircraft per check pilot is a negotiated item with TC.
Our Licenses are not restricted to any specific number of aircraft types. In fact they are fully inclusive as per your license category; IE "all non-high performance single (multi) engine aircraft AND the following types"....
Nor is the number of valid PPC's restrcted in any way. The only PPC restriction is the ability to pass the ride (grouping confuses this issue greatly) but does not in any way restrict the number of aircraft we can fly. Common sense, personal skill and desire, and company policy are the only guidelines we have here. I stand to be corrected but I believe that 705 Airline Ops actually have a 2 aircraft maximum, but my CARs memory is fading as much as my hair line is.
The number 3 that is mentioned is the generally accepted maximum of (non-grouped) aircraft that a non-Transport Canada Air Carrier Check Pilot may conduct PPC's on. These are Company Check Pilots or Free Lancers. Even the 3 aircraft per check pilot is a negotiated item with TC.
